[P-Marlowe]

It depends on whether those justices have studied THE CONSTITUTION or “Constitutional Law”.

That is a good point. I know that when I was in Law School reading the Constitution was not a requirement of my Constitutional Law classes. I was required to read Supreme Court "Opinions" on what the Constitution said, but at no time were were ever required to read nor were we ever tested on the actual language of the Constitution.

[MrB]

And to open a big ol’ can-o-worms on this one -

the “Constitutional Law” approach is “evolutionary” in nature, putting the wisdom of contemporary man over the wisdom of the original author(s), who based the Constitution on the objective Law of the Word of God.

“Original Intent” assumes that the written word has intrinsic and immutable meaning, and should be applied as such to situations and cases.

[Forest Keeper]

I know that when I was in Law School reading the Constitution was not a requirement of my Constitutional Law classes. I was required to read Supreme Court "Opinions" on what the Constitution said, but at no time were we ever required to read nor were we ever tested on the actual language of the Constitution.

That's funny, now that I think of it, it was basically the same for me. Of course, my Con-law prof spoke English as a fourth language so he could have assigned it and we never would have known.